AuthorTopic: Epson 4000 vs Epson 4800 (Read 18058 times)

Interesting article by Mark Segal. What I have found over the years is that not all Epson printers are created equal in terms of their nozzle blocking performance. For example, I once had an Epson 1270 at work simultaneously with one at home. The one at home was a real good'un and hardly ever gave me any trouble with its nozzles. No it was not perfect, but it was so much better than the at work, which bears the marks of Basil Fawltyesque thrashings due to its constant nozzle blocks. Turning to the Epson 4000, my own one does suffer from occasional nozzle blocks, but generally it is pretty well behaved and a cleaning cycle or two is all that is required to return it to reliable performance. The 7600 that runs alongside it on the other hand requires constant conditioning to keep all the nozzles up and firing. Large quantities of ink have been consigned to the waste tank to keep it on song, which just reiterates my point about not all printers being created equal.So, I do not think it is fair to tar all 4000s in comparison to 4800s as being poor performers in this area. That leaves the ink consumption per print as the only really compelling economic reason to upgrade. Can it really be right that the 4000 uses 61% more ink than the 4800 per print? I think we need to see some verification for this. Looking at Epson's literature, I can see no mention of superior performance over the 4000 in this regard. Surely this would be a major selling feature that no Epson marketing manager would overlook?

Firstly, as you know, the Epson 1270 is a dye printer and all the others you mention are pigmented ink printers, so whatever the experience with the 1270 was, it isn't comparable with the others. But I see the point you are making, hence:

Secondly, I've been careful to point out in both articles that I am talking about my experience with my printers. I agree that not everyone's experience will necessarily be the same, because nozzle clogging is subject to a number of variables that differ from user to user (e.g. environmental factors) and possibly from machine to machine, but in the latter case it would mystify me as to why that should be. The print-heads and the ink are all made with the same manufacturing processes. One possibility is that not all checkered test patterns are necessarily clogs. They can also be "ink drops" within the ink lines feeding the heads. But again, why this phenominon should differ from machine to machine, I simply don't have the technical knowledge to know.

Thirdly, inherent variability of one factor or another affecting overall ink use is most likely one of the reasons why manufacturers are generally loathe to discuss ink consumption. It is a pandora's box and there are legal ("truth in advertising" claims, etc.) and competitive disincentives for them to do so.

Fourthly, I have shown in the article that disregarding all cleanings and isolating only the ink used for prints, the consumption data is the consumption data and my 4800 is simply using much less ink per print than my 4000 did. This is not a question of "mathematics" apart from the simple arithmetic of adding up all the ink used on all the prints divided by the number of prints for each machine. If you read my first article, you will see that the way the data base is structured most of the ink for cleaning can be and is isolated from the ink used on prints. That much said, there is variability of ink use for prints from session to session because not all prints need the same amount of ink and exact print dimensions vary from print to print. That is one reason why I let the experience accumulate to well over a thousand prints, so I can see when and where the average settles-down before writing an article about it. With that size of a data base, small variances from session to session produce even smaller variances in the overall average and one can have confidence that the results are quite stable and representative. Yes, the difference of ink use for prints alone between my two machines is surprising but true. I would really expect Epson to know this and not trumpet it for reasons in my third point above.

Mark,Thanks for your response. As you have noted, I was careful to point out that I have experience with dye and pigment based printers (the 4000 and 7600 as I am sure you know, use identical ultrachrome inks). I also have experience running MIS ultratone inks through a 2100 (aka 2200) and a 7000. My point remains that you cannot extrapolate your experience with your 4000 vs your 4800 in relation to nozzle blocks to all 4000s and all 4800s.A big corporation like Epson (backed by Seiko) would have no difficulty tying down the variables that you mention for typical printing jobs and so I am sure that they would be prepared to stand by a claim like this if it is indeed correct. After all, it would be a selling point for the new printer. You cannot discount variables effecting your own data (yes, I know 1000 prints is a lot, but still, they cannot be discounted). Epson do not seem to break out in too much of a sweat over claims of print longevity do they?

First to set-aside the red-herrings, Epson doesn't make its own claims for print permanence. The ratings are quoted from Wilhelm-Imaging Research test results that are accompanied by footnotes long enough to fill a chapter of Encyclopeadia Britannica, so they all have their U-know-whats well covered. I'm not about to speculate any further than I have about what Epson knows or doesn't know about ink consumption except to say that they obviously know more than they publish and they have their reasons, which may be completely unrelated to the question of how representative my data is.

As for the latter, I can only write about what I know, and what I know is what my machines have produced. I agree with you that mileage from other people's machines may well vary, but the difference of stable averages between my two machines is so striking that the comparison we've published is probably well within the ball-park for these technologies as a whole. But impressionistic hypotheses don't count here. If there is anyone out there who has collected this data in the same kind of detailed, systematic manner that I have and can factually demonstrate that my experience is somehow unique and non-representative, that would be a contribution to knowlegde, but until then this is what we now see.

How do your calculations apply to the 4800 running under ImagePrint 6.1 with the Phatte Black mode? After all, many of us are no longer using the Epson driver, and knowing if the cost is similar with IP would be very useful.

I am also curious if the 1300 prints you count are of your work or if you print for other photographers, or if some prints are not photographs but text or other data.

As an aside, let me mention my own 4000 to 4800 upgrade experience. I traded my 4000 for $900 when I bought the 4800 (from Exim Vaios which had a special trade-in offer at the time) and paid no return shipping (a significant cost given the weight of the machine). When I made the trade, all the ink carts on the 4000 were empty (luck of the draw as I print continuously and couldn't plan it). This is a cost of about $500 for eight 110ml carts. That's $1400 already between the trade and the cost of new carts. I paid $1900 for the 4800, making my actual expense $500. Print sales covering that amount were done in the week after receiving the 4800. Plus, I saved seller and paypal fees compared to selling it on ebay. Finally, I saved a lot of time when compared to advertising it on ebay.

So if on top of that I am saving on ink, it's really icing on the cake.

Well, I am all for setting aside red-herrings and not for splitting hairs, but....Epson does make its own claims for print longevity, the evidence base for this is provided by Wilhelm Research. The evidence base for ink consumption could have been easily provided by Epson themselves, 'reasons' not withstanding.As a medic, I am supposed to know something about quality of evidence and I do not think you have eliminated variables sufficiently, hence verification is required. In my own case, I would be much more interested in the qualitative differences in print output between the two before I sell off and start afresh.

Alain, HI - You did really well on all that - congratulations! Anything like that with a one week payback is stellar indeed.

I don't use ImagePrint, so I have no Phatte Black, and therefore no experience from which to draw any comparative inferences. One of these days, maybe. I'm getting very good results with the Epson driver and profiles, and on the one issue for which I would have liked better resuts (very deep shade differentiation), a couple of tests with ImagePrint didn't make enough difference on the printed page to warrant the cost. Also, I only use matte paper for now, so the switching hasn't been an issue yet.

The 1300 prints are all my own work, and they are all photographs. I've produced several pages of text or text with photos as presentation cover pages, but I did not include those in the print count.

Drew, I've been working with numbers for more years than I care to think about, so I know the meaning of statistical signifigance, I know the limitations of samples of one, and therefore I know that what I am writing is not exhaustive, and I've made that clear. If I were a testing laboratory with a budget and several climatically controlled rooms (operating under different temperature and humidity conditions) full of multiple samples of the same equipment I could perhaps exhaust all the variables that would be of most relevance and present results that are just about 100% conclusive. However, I'm one guy with one printer after another operating out of my single digital darkroom. If the differences in the results I got between these machines were marginal, I would not write such an article, but I think, given the nature of this evidence, I have most likely found something significant. One must also ask oneself, given the high degree of uniformity and testing of Epson's professional machines, what is the technical probability of occurrence that one or both of my machines were way off the norm? I would be the first one interested in other peoples' evidence, so as I said, anyone with properly collected hard numbers should let us see what they have, to either confirm or challenge my findings.

As for qualitative differences in output between the two machines, here we get into real judgmental stuff, but let me give you my two-cents worth. If you are mainly printing in colour on matte paper, you'll see a slight increase of colour saturation at the saturated end of test charts and slightly better blacks, which translates into a slightly more refined 3/4 tonal scale. But frankly, in actual prints they both produce excellent quality on matte media, and others who've made direct comparisons have observed that there isn't much difference between them. However. if you're printing mainly black and white or mainly on non-matte media, there is a much more substantial and noticeable quality improvement. So from the print quality perspective it mainly depends on what you use the printer for.

I don't use ImagePrint, so I have no Phatte Black, and therefore no experience from which to draw any comparative inferences. Also, I only use matte paper for now, so the switching hasn't been an issue yet. The 1300 prints are all my own work, and they are all photographs.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I understand. I would think the difference would be minimal (?). You mention you only use matte paper, and that makes me think the savings may be higher with glossy paper since typically less ink is used for glossy prints. The heaviest ink use is with the Watercolor Radiant White setting which is often used with third party matte papers such as Hahnemuhle and Moab.

1300 prints in 4 months is a good number. You are working hard! Congratulations.

Mark,I see you are an energy economist. This explains a great deal. Your print usage needs to be put into context as according to your own methodology a 'print' measures 54 square inches. Therefore, 1300 standard prints in four months equates to about 75 near full-bleed A3+ prints per month. Nothing wrong in that, but a print house would have a much larger throughput and they would be the most interested in the economics you have laid out. Also, you admit that you cannot log all type (i) cleanings and none of the type (ii) cleanings. If there was a significant difference between your throughput with the 4000 against the 4800, these cleanings may have had a significant effect on your data. Next, you say you print with profiles. Do you make them yourself or do you get them from elsewhere? Have you considered the possibility that your typical profile for the 4800 is simply a 'better' i.e. more economical profile than that you would have used typically for the 4000? A different profile might yield a radically different result for either printer. Also, your own data indicates quite significant variability in ink usage per session (a spread of about threefold). Yes, I know that in 77 out of 110 of your sessions, the ink usage is close to 1 ml per SP, but even in these 77, there is variability of up to 20%. By your own admission, you only print on to matte media, so your data is not applicable to someone like me who prints mostly on glossy (RC) media. Finally, you have changed from the 4000 to the 4800. Can you honestly tell me that you would have published the data or have been as enthusiastic about the results if you had found the opposite. This, as you know is called observer bias.Sorry, but I do find sometimes that there is too much discussion of pseudo-science or pseudo-stats here. Give me passion for quality anyday, hence my interest in the qualitative differences between the printers. I note that you (and MR) do not think there is a huge amount of difference in quality, but this something I am going to have to come to my own conclusions about.

Logged

Andrew Richards [url=http://www.andrewri

DarkPenguin

I'm not about to speculate any further than I have about what Epson knows or doesn't know about ink consumption except to say that they obviously know more than they publish and they have their reasons, which may be completely unrelated to the question of how representative my data is.

*chomp*

My guess: The patented epson clogmaster technology means that ink usage is completely random and that any numbers they might provide would just open themselves up to lawsuits.

Based on my data and other information, I don't believe for a moment that ink usage is completely random - certainly not the ink that is consumed for printing, as opposed to cleaning clogs. The extent and severity of clogs, and how much ink is needed to clear them, does depend on a number of atmospheric and technical factors, including the firmware in the printer. Epson has up-graded the firmware for the 4000 and incorporated their latest firmware in the 4800, so this probably accounts for some of the improvement that has taken place.

Your statement at the end of your post I think reflects the kind of reason why they may be reluctant to publish data on ink performance. If I were them I wouldn't want to be sued into the stone-age either.

On a light-hearted note - if they were back in the stone age we wouldn't have this wonderful technology they are producing.

Alain, if my memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall some talk that ImagePrint profiles are more economical on ink, but it came up some time ago in a seminar and there may be context I have forgotten since. In any case, one would really need to measure it to know objectively.

And yes, I have been printing a great deal over the past few months! I just keep thinking if this were the old wet darkroom days the productivity would have been a fraction and the colour quality nowhere near.............

<<Your print usage needs to be put into context as according to your own methodology a 'print' measures 54 square inches. Therefore, 1300 standard prints in four months equates to about 75 near full-bleed A3+ prints per month. Nothing wrong in that, but a print house would have a much larger throughput and they would be the most interested in the economics you have laid out. Also, you admit that you cannot log all type (i) cleanings and none of the type (ii) cleanings. >>

I can log all the type (i) cleanings, there are few type (ii) cleanings and they happen with both machines. With the 4000 I may have missed several type (i) cleanings. They consume 4 ml each. No big deal as a fraction of the total.

<<If there was a significant difference between your throughput with the 4000 against the 4800, these cleanings may have had a significant effect on your data.>>

They donít have much effect on the data relating to ink used for printing alone, because just from recollection of what the machines do while printing, I am certain that type (ii) cleanings are considerably less important than type (i) and type (iii) cleanings. To the extent the 4800 needs less cleaning altogether, there have probably been proportionaly fewer type (ii) cleanings, so that is part of the overall performance improvement.

<<Next, you say you print with profiles. Do you make them yourself or do you get them from elsewhere? Have you considered the possibility that your typical profile for the 4800 is simply a 'better' i.e. more economical profile than that you would have used typically for the 4000? A different profile might yield a radically different result for either printer. >>

Everyone must print with profiles, as you know. 99.5% of all the prints I made with both machines use Epson profiles for Enhanced Matte paper. If they've improved their Enhanced Matte profile in respect of ink consumption for the 4800 that may be one validating reason for the improved performance of the 4800.

<<Also, your own data indicates quite significant variability in ink usage per session (a spread of about threefold). Yes, I know that in 77 out of 110 of your sessions, the ink usage is close to 1 ml per SP, but even in these 77, there is variability of up to 20%. >>

There is variability from the 4800 also. To date, the minimum ML/SP has been 0.54 and the maximum 1.00. Once we get into the kind of print numbers I've done, and visually see with each session how little the overall average wiggles around as more and more data gets added to it, one develops confidence that this variability is not randomly impacting conclusions in either case.

<<By your own admission, you only print on to matte media, so your data is not applicable to someone like me who prints mostly on glossy (RC) media. >>

Agreed. As I said, I'm not a testing lab. I'm a guy who prints his own pictures - with some seriousness, and I wrote the article to give readers on this website whatever benefit there is to sharing my experience.

<<Finally, you have changed from the 4000 to the 4800. Can you honestly tell me that you would have published the data or have been as enthusiastic about the results if you had found the opposite. >>

Having presented my first article on the 4000 to Luminous-Landscape for publication, the follow-up story for the successive printer model is a natural, regardless of the results. Of course if nothing had changed the story would be less interesting, but findings of either substantial improvement or substantial deterioration make it more useful to readers whichever way the cookie crumbles.

<<Sorry, but I do find sometimes that there is too much discussion of pseudo-science or pseudo-stats here. >>

No need for apologies. These are not pseudo-stats. The data is carefully and correctly logged session by session, subject by subject. The exercise is scientific to the extent that the methodology consists of conventional addition, subtraction, multiplication and division embedded in a fairly straightforward Excel spread-sheet and completely repeatable by anyone who wants to use it.

<<Give me passion for quality anyday, hence my interest in the qualitative differences between the printers. I note that you (and MR) do not think there is a huge amount of difference in quality, >>

Well Drew, cost-accounting and appreciating quality are two separate aspects of all this, and like you I very much appreciate the latter to the extent that I put a great deal of time and effort into it. From comparisons I have seen of 4000/4800 prints on non-matte media (i.e. what you use) there is a quite noticeable difference in quality - if bronzing and gloss differential matters to you. I've never been all that impressed with those issues because if you look at the print from one angle you see the problems and from another angle you don't. It's a bit elusive, but many serious photographers find brozing and/or GD totally unacceptable. This is a matter of taste and standards, which vary legitimately from person to person. I agree that you need to see these things for yourself and come to your own conclusions based on what you see, what matters to you and hence what you know.

Mark,I find that Lyson Print Guard deals very successfully with the issue of bronzing/gloss differential. Of course, this adds a further cost to the prints, but the cloud of intoxicating vapour produced is worth taking a few inadvertent breaths of as, in my view, it raises the prints to a higher level of quality. Not only does it largely eliminate GD, it also has the benefit of making the prints much more resistant to scuffing/abrasion. I would probably coat RC prints out of the 4800 in the same way in anticipation that it would totallly eliminate GD and have the other benefit.So, returning to your economics, it would be fair to say that if you are a 4000 user thinking of upgrading to a 4800 and you print only on matte papers using the epson provided profiles, you will probably see a benefit in ink consumption. If these usage criteria do not apply to you (and you need to know....., especially if you are an energy economist ), you need to repeat the tests.

Iíve used a 4800 since October. The Epson print monitor indicates ink usage of 0.5-1.0 mL per 8.5x11 print. I havenít averaged the values, but Markís value is certainly consistent with my observations. Apparently Epson reports that the K3 inks are twice the density of UC inks, this would certainly explain less ink usage vs. the 4000. An interesting, well-written report from a participant in the Epson Print Academy can be found here:

Tom,Thanks. I read the thread from end to end and it is as you say very interesting. If the K3 inks are indeed 2x the density of the UC inks, this would probably explain most of the advances (bronzing, GD etc.) and also possibly the economy issue. The upcoming Focus show in the UK is going to give me an opportunity to take along some of own prints and compare on the Epson stand. That said, I make my own profiles, I work in Adobe RGB 1998 with 16 bit files and I am happy generally with both colour and black and white prints from UC inks, so I will take some convincing.

You mentioned you use glossy paper, as is my preference for most prints. Based on my admittedly limited experience the improvement on glossy media is dramatic. I largely switched to matte papers when using the UC inks, the GD bothered me that much. It's a non-issue with the K3 inks and other improvements are noticeable if not as dramatic. I solved the MK/PK change problem by keeping a 2200, as the improvement on matte papers with K3 is very subtle.

Tom,The GD bothers me too, but it is effectively dealt with by Lyson PrintGuard. I have no idea what this product does to the otugassing issue, but I do not intend to generally offer framed prints for sale. The main change to my workflow has been the purchase of equipment to make my own profiles. I find that this virtually guarantees accurate colour and neutrality in black and white. I then add a bit of warmth to my B&W work as I am not a fan of neutral/cool black and white.This topic interests me because I probably should be rationalising my printer (as in also my camera) collection.

I thought Mark's article and analysis was pretty interesting. I was wondering about cleaning though. Has anyone tried using any of the head cleaning kits so it's unnecessary to use any ink (except, I presume, what's necessary to recharge after the cleaning).

Some time ago I read about these things. There was a comment I remember to the effect that when someone has a clog that's simply not going away and sends the printer in for repair that the repair people use these kinds of head cleaning cartridges.